You indirectly did by saying both were to blame. That's like saying if you ran off the road to hit me yet blamed me when if I got pissed off and reacted. I think you won't have much support on this one. And I like to take the cops side whenever possible because citizens are idiots.
I don't feel like I'm biased on this one. it's hard to see the need to even arrest her. Much less make a scene about it. Let me try this: I show up to collect a sample. Nurse won't let me. I call supervisor. We call judge. Judge says yes or no. Judge says yes, I do my job. Judge says no, I go somewhere else to do my job.
I don't think so. To be clear, the nurse should have never been detained and cuffed. Should have never happened. She was at fault for the disagreement. Me saying she has any fault should not be construed as to mean she shares fault for the entire ordeal. If someone thinks that then they're drawing conclusions. On the last point, I couldn't give a hairy rat's rear end if anyone agrees with me.
Why don't you bother to read the article? You're making things up to justify your opinion. First she got her supervisor on the line to explain the law to the officer. "Nurse Alex Wubbels politely stood her ground. She got her supervisor on the phone so Payne could hear the decision loud and clear. “Sir,” said the supervisor, “you’re making a huge mistake because you’re threatening a nurse.”" Second the Supreme Court ruled explicitly on this issue. "On top of that, Wubbels was right. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that blood can only be drawn from drivers for probable cause, with a warrant." I'm not going to speculate why he was so insistent only that he was wrong in every way. There is no room for any other conclusion.
Sport it's not whether someone agrees with you or not; it's that you acknowledge the facts when making you position. Your dream that the nurse was at fault in any way is blown out of the water by the facts of what happened. As I said go back and read the effing article.
I usually don't bother with this kind of ignorance but I"ll make this exception for you. First of all, I have read the article, and I'm fully aware of the Supreme Court's position. The Supreme Court ruling to which you refer applies only to new state laws (North Dakota & Minnesota) that impose criminal penalties in addition to the civil penalties ( loss of driving license) already imposed for refusal to comply with implied consent laws. A warrant would be required in the event of refusal in those states. However, the states of Utah and Louisiana impose only civil penalties in these matters so are therefore unaffected by this Supreme Court ruling. I'm embarrassed for you.
Well, not exactly. He did say "we're done" and "you're under arrest" but was, at the same time, attempting to grab her cell phone and coming toward her. I think it's natural human reaction to back up when someone is trying to grab your property. She did tell him "you can't arrest me" but buy then it was already escalated. Nonsense. He placed his hands on her to do a number of things, but guiding was not one of them. He was in full-on forward pursuit. Yes, he was on her back and she was screaming for help. But he had her basically in a bear hug as they went toward the door. She wasn't going anywhere. He did say she was under arrest. But if we consider a continuum, IMO, he started at a point past common sense "GO", and didn't allow for a calm process. There were probably 3 or 4 things that could have been done before he swiped at her phone and then pushed her toward the wall. That doesn't change my point though. Being detained and arrested are not finitely the same thing and he never attempted to inform her of a potential detainment while he considered further action. Yes, based on HER understanding of the agreement between the PD and the hospital. If there were exceptions that the PD were going to pursue or excuse, then they shouldn't have agreed to something different with the hospital.
There may be states other than North Dakota & Minnesota that impose criminal penalties for refusal to comply with implied consent laws but those are the two that came to mind.
Correct, this is what's so sad about the whole thing. It seems obvious this should have been brought up but the cop was so pig-headed about getting his way. But if this was really about drawing blood from a commercial driver then it technically isn't an exception, it wasn't even covered by this agreement, it seems. I could be wrong but that's what it looks like.
